[csw-maintainers] incoherent checkpkg result related to libXaw

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Peter,

Am 01.03.2013 um 13:26 schrieb pfelecan <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
> I packaged TeXLive on February 25th and there were no errors during the checkpkg phase.
> 
> Trying to upload the packages I get an error about a shared library not existing:
> 
> * libXaw.so.5 could not be resolved for opt/csw/bin/xdvi-xaw, with rpath
>   ('/opt/csw/lib/$ISALIST', '/opt/csw/lib', '/opt/csw/lib',
>   '/usr/openwin/lib', '/opt/csw/lib', '/usr/lib/$ISALIST', '/usr/lib',
>   '/lib/$ISALIST', '/lib'), expanded to ['/opt/csw/lib',
>   '/opt/csw/lib/amd64', '/opt/csw/lib/pentium+mmx', '/opt/csw/lib/pentium',
>   '/opt/csw/lib/i486', '/opt/csw/lib/i386', '/opt/csw/lib/pentium_pro',
>   '/opt/csw/lib/i86', '/opt/csw/lib/pentium_pro+mmx', '/opt/csw/lib',
>   '/opt/csw/lib', '/usr/openwin/lib', '/opt/csw/lib', '/usr/lib',
>   '/usr/lib/amd64', '/usr/lib/pentium+mmx', '/usr/lib/pentium',
>   '/usr/lib/i486', '/usr/lib/i386', '/usr/lib/pentium_pro', '/usr/lib/i86',
>   '/usr/lib/pentium_pro+mmx', '/usr/lib', '/lib', '/lib/amd64',
>   '/lib/pentium+mmx', '/lib/pentium', '/lib/i486', '/lib/i386',
>   '/lib/pentium_pro', '/lib/i86', '/lib/pentium_pro+mmx', '/lib'], while the
>   file was not present on the filesystem, nor in the packages under
>   examination.
> 
> for the texlive-binaries package.
> 
> However, the library libXaw.so.5 exits in /usr/openwin/lib on a Solaris 10 installation.
> 
> At the end of the upload output there is the usual phrase saying that:
> 
> To see errors, run:
>  /opt/csw/bin/checkpkg --catalog-release unstable --os-release SunOS5.11 --architecture i386 ...
> 
> This makes me think that this can be specific to Solaris 11 but it's just a supposition.

This is indeed the case. libXaw.so.5 is part of pkg:/x11/library/toolkit/libxaw5 which is
specifically an addon: "This package provides a libXaw.so.5 binary for backwards compatibility
with programs compiled on older releases of Solaris.".

> In conclusion, as I wrote in the subject line, there is an incoherency somewhere and not only about the incriminated library.
> 
> Can a knowledgeable person have a look and suggest a corrective path?


As we can't specify dependencies to such IPS packages yet I suggest that I reregister
the packages from unstable11* now the package is installed. This should lead to checkpkg
to pass.


Best regards

  -- Dago

-- 
"You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something,
and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896